Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Global Warming Swindle

The Global Warming Swindle (Page 4)
Thread Tools
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2009, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm not sure what you're reading at all. I've seen you pop up at least twice to indicate what it is others' links are supposedly saying only to have someone else who read the article provide copy-pastes showing your misunderstanding or worse... inaccurate kneejerk reactions to data you're not fond of.
When was that? I'll gladly change my comments if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The IPCC lead author of the section rejected the reviewer’s comment stating: “the purpose of this Figure is to illustrate in a simple fashion, the variability of numerous records that have been used in published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes”.

In other words, your data does not presuppose what our data is intended to illustrate therefore, it is of no use to us. Thanks anyway.
No. The comments are arguing that the data isn't accurate. The rebuttal is that it's not illustrating data accuracy, but examples of the various graphs that have been used to represent that data. They're just examples of large-scale temperature graphs, data accuracy has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The most damning evidence it produces for AGW have not come from nor been reviewed by scientists with critical analysis included in the policy summary statements and assessment reports.
Evidence such as what? I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm as interested as you when it comes to where they get their data from. I was under the impression that the information is pulled from publications.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2009, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
When was that? I'll gladly change my comments if I'm wrong.
A less direct example of your propensity was the classroom "Inconvenient Truth" worksheet you posted a link to claiming what it supposedly didn't say. I responded with questions from the worksheet and it became very apparent to me that you hadn't verified your own link. I believe that's on page 2 of this thread.

The specific example is shifuiman's response to you on page three of this thread with a copy-paste of what the link actually said, countering your claim that it didn't. Again, making it apparent that you're not reading links, you're just commenting on them.



No. The comments are arguing that the data isn't accurate. The rebuttal is that it's not illustrating data accuracy, but examples of the various graphs that have been used to represent that data. They're just examples of large-scale temperature graphs, data accuracy has nothing to do with it.
Well... first of all I'd say that data accuracy indeed has nothing to do with it. That was the crux of the complaint that was ignored. What the reviewer claimed is that some of the graphs had no business being used for published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes of any sort. Again, he was ignored and that graph as well as the debunked hockey stick graph both made it into the AR.



Evidence such as what? I'm not being facetious or anything, I'm as interested as you when it comes to where they get their data from. I was under the impression that the information is pulled from publications.
You may first read up on basic IPCC methodology among the various working groups and how the policy summary statements are drafted. The statements that are then pulled and used to beat the populace over the head. Then, read the studies referenced by the authors. What you'll find is a much more honest assessment of the state of the science (infancy) and the lingo much more tempered than what you'll see in the report itself. Again, this is not an indictment against them. I'd expect no less from a panel comprised with the express intent of studying man-made climate change and drafting public policy to mitigate it. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to grasp. It's not about science as a whole nor is their goal primarily interested in the science itself. The science is a means to an end. It's very much about a specific discipline of science and economics and politics using scientific information that enables a very specific policy agenda. It's not like they're being sneaky about it, it is their stated mission goal.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2009, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A less direct example of your propensity was the classroom "Inconvenient Truth" worksheet you posted a link to claiming what it supposedly didn't say. I responded with questions from the worksheet and it became very apparent to me that you hadn't verified your own link. I believe that's on page 2 of this thread.
I just simply missed your response. I did read the worksheet, but I missed that question on it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The specific example is shifuiman's response to you on page three of this thread with a copy-paste of what the link actually said, countering your claim that it didn't. Again, making it apparent that you're not reading links, you're just commenting on them.
To which I replied and gave examples as to why shifuiman's response was not accurate. That's also on page 3. Maybe you missed it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... first of all I'd say that data accuracy indeed has nothing to do with it. That was the crux of the complaint that was ignored. What the reviewer claimed is that some of the graphs had no business being used for published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes of any sort. Again, he was ignored and that graph as well as the debunked hockey stick graph both made it into the AR.
Why shouldn't it be used? They're just examples of graphs. They're also well recognized graphs. "This is an example of a graph used to chart climate change. This is the infamous hockey stick graph which is no longer accurate, but it still illustrates the techniques used."

This also does not fall in line of people claiming that scientists are being shut down and ignored. Science is about the nature of discovery. In all this bickering, there hasn't been any peer reviewed study that contradicts the current climate change theory. If you think something is wrong, gather the evidence and show that it's wrong. Gods forbid some people actually do some work instead of just standing on a soap box and exclaiming it's wrong, hiring a publicist and putting out a book.

I have absolutely nothing against finding out if the current theories regarding global warming are largely inaccurate; that humans have little to no impact on the climate at a global scale. I'd actually prefer it that way. It means cheaper products, cheaper goods, lower taxes, etc. However, I'm not going to change my viewpoint or my practices because some meteorologist in Arkansas says he thinks it's all a scam. Show that it's wrong. I've had enough of gut feelings with the previous administration.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 19, 2009, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You have to wonder about the 'science' they are doing which allowed the "hockey Stick graph" to be accepted in the first place.
The only kind of science there is. It's a process of discovery. At the time, some evidence and data represented the hockey stick figure. When new evidence surfaced, practices changed and/or improved, errors corrected, etc. Now the hockey stick graph is not longer accurate, so different graphs are developed with the new evidence and data.

It's the same science that sends probes to Mars and people to the moon.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I just simply missed your response. I did read the worksheet, but I missed that question on it.
You mean the 7 questions out of 20 that were specifically related to anthropogenic causation and even one on Kyoto protocol?

To which I replied and gave examples as to why shifuiman's response was not accurate. That's also on page 3. Maybe you missed it.
No, I saw it. I found it a woefully inadequate response given shifuiman's actual copy-paste of the article saying precisely what you claimed it didn't. There was little else you should've said other than; "I apologize", but I've not come to expect that around here.

Why shouldn't it be used? They're just examples of graphs. They're also well recognized graphs. "This is an example of a graph used to chart climate change. This is the infamous hockey stick graph which is no longer accurate, but it still illustrates the techniques used."
You're still missing the point. The reviewer was told that “the purpose of this Figure is to illustrate in a simple fashion, the variability of numerous records that have been used in published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes”. How does showing the "variability of numerous records used in published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes" even begin to address the reviewer's statements that some of those graphs have no business being used for temperature changes of any kind in a report in which they were used anyway? They cannot be used for any such measurement at all. The honest answer you're looking for here olePigeon is "it really doesn't address the reviewer's complaint at all".

In all this bickering, there hasn't been any peer reviewed study that contradicts the current climate change theory.
Again, you have a false sense of security in a "scientific consensus" that simply doesn't exist. You're so confident in this misperception that you could make such a bold statement above. I maintain that this notion is not bolstered by the science of climate change or any related empirical data, but of something else entirely. Something that IMO wreaks of dishonesty. How can I be so bold?

On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice
The Continuing Search for an Anthropogenic Climate Change Signal: Limitations of Correlation-Based Approaches
A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate
Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle demonstrated in a coupled model
Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr
Validation problems in climate modelling and General Circulation Models (GCMs)

I have absolutely nothing against finding out if the current theories regarding global warming are largely inaccurate; that humans have little to no impact on the climate at a global scale. I'd actually prefer it that way. It means cheaper products, cheaper goods, lower taxes, etc. However, I'm not going to change my viewpoint or my practices because some meteorologist in Arkansas says he thinks it's all a scam. Show that it's wrong. I've had enough of gut feelings with the previous administration.
It has nothing at all to do with your concern for political climate olePigeon nor your partisan hangups. It has to do with global climate, the science, and the state of it.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
The only kind of science there is. It's a process of discovery. At the time, some evidence and data represented the hockey stick figure. When new evidence surfaced, practices changed and/or improved, errors corrected, etc. Now the hockey stick graph is not longer accurate, so different graphs are developed with the new evidence and data.
Yeah olePigeon, it's called a "spaghetti graph" which is a compilation of several graphs, one of which is the (in your words) "no longer accurate" hockey stick graph.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, I saw it. I found it a woefully inadequate response given shifuiman's actual copy-paste of the article saying precisely what you claimed it didn't. There was little else you should've said other than; "I apologize", but I've not come to expect that around here.
I also copy-pasted and bolded the exact same response, however, I pointed out the first part of the statement which was conveniently glossed over. I also explained the very important distinction between "all" and "a lot."

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How does showing the "variability of numerous records used in published reconstructions of large-scale temperature changes" even begin to address the reviewer's statements that some of those graphs have no business being used for temperature changes of any kind in a report in which they were used anyway? They cannot be used for any such measurement at all. The honest answer you're looking for here olePigeon is "it really doesn't address the reviewer's complaint at all".
The graphs are examples, simplified to get the point across regardless if the graphs are actually relevant to collecting data and displaying it in an appropriate manner. He's arguing that those types of graphs should never be used, the response is that it doesn't matter, they're just trying to get the point across with the simplest examples. If you plot data on it and run a line across the mean, you get a graph.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, you have a false sense of security in a "scientific consensus" that simply doesn't exist.
A consensus does not mean unanimous. 50% of good science is having skeptics, to be able to relatively prove that something is wrong or needs to be changed. I have no false sense of security in a consensus because I know there can (and probably will be) changes to that consensus.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I maintain that this notion is not bolstered by the science of climate change or any related empirical data, but of something else entirely. Something that IMO wreaks of dishonesty. How can I be so bold?
It's a global conspiracy. Every single educational and scientific institution is keeping studies sequestered. When new evidence surfaces, current climate theory will be modified for or against the possibility of anthropomorphic climate change. As more evidence is presented in either direction, my views and opinions will change. Simple as that.

You're under the delusion that I believe it is 100% correct, or that I have "faith" in any one particular point of view. I've stated countless times that science (and my views derived thereof) is about probability and relative certainty, I'm not going to say anything is 100% correct.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It has nothing at all to do with your concern for political climate olePigeon nor your partisan hangups. It has to do with global climate, the science, and the state of it.
This is especially ironic coming from you, but I do agree. Unfortunately, if politics had nothing to do with it, we wouldn't be arguing over the validity of the IPCC and how it affects the actions of our respective governments. My jab at the Bush Administration was only an example of the hurdles that the scientific community has to deal with; passing laws that limit exploration, reduce funding, etc. because a president has religious and gut feelings that are at odds with scientific study.

It's like the Pope just the other day running around telling people that condoms increase the risk of passing STDs... in Africa. It's hard not to involve politics when you have an organization as powerful and influential as Catholicism running around influencing peoples' judgement.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yeah olePigeon, it's called a "spaghetti graph" which is a compilation of several graphs, one of which is the (in your words) "no longer accurate" hockey stick graph.
Right, because that's how you create an average. Just because it isn't accurate doesn't mean it isn't relevant.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 02:29 PM
 
I'll get back to this thread at some point (a little overloaded as exam time approaches) but I had to point out this "paper" which popped up and made some noise a couple years ago.

Don't know which "skeptic site" you found it on, but you might want to gently know that there's a reason no one talks about the "conclusion" of these two petroleum engineers. It's because, well, it was an embarrassment. They had an earlier paper, too, but no one talks about that one either.

I'm pretty sure this was already mentioned on the board at some point of course.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 03:34 PM
 
Greg; the IPCC is funded by government resources to study the affect of human-induced climate change and draft government policy to mitigate it. It does not surprise me that there are studies funded by similarly motivated "industries" to combat the message. This goes for studies funded by the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others interested in using carbon credits as a market commodity up to and including GE affiliates, an entity that makes the Oil lobby look like the public golfers association.

You're going to nitpick the studies with no information on why they're wrong, employing the very same "attack the messenger" method of critique you're all too quick to indict others for employing, using one standard for those that affirm your view and a different standard for those that do not.

olePigeon; You're not paying attention at all to what I'm saying. You're misinterpreting the links you cite, you completely ignore the links I cite (the ones you called for twice in your last post), you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the state of the science in an honest manner, the long continuum of professional thought on this issue, and you maintain a posture so rigid as to rival only that of greg's. Neither one of you represent your alleged interest with any integrity, scientific or otherwise.

You're both apparently more concerned for political climate than global climate, you call for scientific evidence of which I posted 8 examples. olePigeon ignores them entirely after two paragraphs of requesting something, one of the 8 examples grabbed by greg for some nefarious connection to Exxon-Mobile (which will be little more than a grant given a firm, two generations deep and at least 8 years separated from the issue or contributors at hand) and both of you will lap up any evidence that affirms your view based on standards you simply will not afford those studies that don't parrot your presuppositions. Enjoy your chatter. I'm through with the both of you on this topic. Pathetic show guys. Pathetic.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 03:41 PM
 
BTW greg, before you pop in to try and match me word for word, you don't have time right now. Remember? You tried that BS already. That goes for whatever else you're about to say on this issue.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
olePigeon; You're not paying attention at all to what I'm saying. You're misinterpreting the links you cite...
I thought I covered my position on that link pretty well. I mean, unless you have a different interpretation of the phrase "a lot." I'm all ears.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...you absolutely refuse to acknowledge the state of the science in an honest manner.
I admit I'm confused. What am I missing about the "state of science?" That people, groups, organizations, and political bodies misuse data, misinterpret or don't understand scientific theory, or use it in a manner that you disagree with?

This has been true for thousands of years.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're both apparently more concerned for political climate than global climate...
I can't state enough times that my concerns may change given new information. If it was political, my concerns wouldn't change regardless of any new information.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...you call for scientific evidence of which I posted 8 examples. olePigeon ignores them entirely after two paragraphs of requesting something, one of the 8 examples grabbed by greg for some nefarious connection to Exxon-Mobile...
Those are the run of the mill journals cited by the usual Climatescam, Heartland, and other conservative, conspiracy, etc. websites. I ignored them because I'm pretty sure I've addressed them already at least three or four times. So here it is again:

1. - Front study for Exxon-Mobile.
2. - Debunked.
3. - Study from 1985. Interesting, but doesn't contradict anything.
4. - Front study for Exxon-Mobile.
5. - Already considered in current models. Doesn't contradict anything.
6. & 7. - Helps to explain some of the ice ages. Interesting, but again, doesn't contradict anything.
8. - Study partly financed by NASA in 2003 as a review of climate models. I would assume that the concerns have since been addressed in the past 6 years. Computers are become more and more powerful, so more and more variables can be considered when calculating new models.

You are, of course, welcome to post more studies. I would suggest that you don't copy/paste from quack blogs next time.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 05:30 PM
 
"LOL"

Sorry dude, "real world" responsibilities have me limited to couple-minute posts for the time being. I'll post a more comprehensive response at some point in the next week or so.

That wasn't an "attack the messenger" attack. It was a "that 'scientific publication was an embarrassment to science' and everyone knows it" attack. Oddly enough, a few days ago I was just skimming a thorough and vicious blasting of the second publication you listed, as well.

Do some quick googling if you like. It's not my fault you're posting crap, dude. Who gave you those links, anyway? Was it a skeptic site? That falls into the straw-grasping realm of things....

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2009, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I admit I'm confused. What am I missing about the "state of science?" That people, groups, organizations, and political bodies misuse data, misinterpret or don't understand scientific theory, or use it in a manner that you disagree with?
That people (like me, you, and greg), groups (like the UN, GE, Exxon-Mobile, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace), political bodies (like those drafting global government policy and those who oppose it) all have in fact shown IMO an equal propensity for abusing data, misinterpreting data, and one discipline entirely too unaware of the other's discipline. You boldly assert too much IMO and in the opinion of not only laypeople, but professionals. They are not all beholden to some larger oil conspiracy to throw global destruction on the table for a couple more dollars.

This has been true for thousands of years.
What... fear being used to sell something? I've known this from at least the time of the Music Man. Of course, we're in the throws of a whole bunch of it right now.

I can't state enough times that my concerns may change given new information. If it was political, my concerns wouldn't change regardless of any new information.
I'm skeptical. We'll see.

Those are the run of the mill journals cited by the usual Climatescam, Heartland, and other conservative, conspiracy, etc. websites. I ignored them because I'm pretty sure I've addressed them already at least three or four times. So here it is again:
1. nothing.
2. - Debunked.
From what I've read of that paper and the subsequent chatter, it was more a reiteration of AGW orthodoxy than a refutation of G&Ts paper. I hope you're willing to do at least as much stare and compare as I intend to. We'll not agree here, but the lessons are always good.
3. - Study from 1985. Interesting, but doesn't contradict anything.
Yep, right about the time the programming for the GCMs used in the IPCC AR4 were updated. Wait, maybe 5 years later.
4. - Front study for Exxon-Mobile.
Certainly much less noble an entity than a global government policy front, GE and subsidiary carbon credit scheme, Sierra Club, or Greenpeace.
5. - Already considered in current models. Doesn't contradict anything.
How are solar variability, the 12,000 yr trend and 1500 yr oscillations considered in the current models?
6. & 7. - Helps to explain some of the ice ages. Interesting, but again, doesn't contradict anything.
It certainly implies a more honest balance to assessing the role of natural variability by giving empirical evidence for an otherwise invisible phenomena. It's interesting because it's science. Just because they don't say "Al Gore is a poop-butt, stinky face" doesn't mean they don't contradict anything.
8. - Study partly financed by NASA in 2003 as a review of climate models. I would assume that the concerns have since been addressed in the past 6 years. Computers are become more and more powerful, so more and more variables can be considered when calculating new models.

Why the assumption olePigeon? How many of the concerns raised by NASA have been addressed in the past 6 years? More and more variables only produce more data inputs, including their noise. It could be another three years at least before we know conclusively that we've even reduced any appreciable noise. Garbage in is still garbage out.

You are, of course, welcome to post more studies. I would suggest that you don't copy/paste from quack blogs next time.
You might be surprised to know that I actually did more work than that and am not in the mood to post more studies for you to whine about the black helicopters of Exxon. Besides olePigeon, this just isn't as convincing an argument as you seem to think it is. There are times when those quack blogs and the quack scientists contributing to them are the only ones publishing peer-reviewed data that in fact exists, challenging our current understanding of the anthropogenic role in climate change. I can find your published articles cited on any number of zealot's blogs. This means absolutely nothing. Still... I sometimes wonder if Darwin would've had a blog. That friggin' quack hobbyist probably would've.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2009, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
1. nothing.
*snort*

Are...you being serious??

That paper had an absolutely scathing reply by a European scientist that was immediately written in the same journal, I believe. In fact, the whole thing stunk so much it was used as an example in a "when peer review goes wrong" presentation given in an atmospheric science course I was taking at the time. If I remember correctly there was also some suspicious stuff going on with the editorial board as well.

This is terrible, ebuddy. Absolutely laughable.

EDIT: More I thought about it, more I had to look it up:
Scathing Published Reply

I also found some more stuff such as the author has been accused of multiple-publication fraud (i.e. publishing in two different journals, the other one of which he's on the editorial board...hahahaha).

Great stuff.


2. - Debunked.
From what I've read of that paper and the subsequent chatter, it was more a reiteration of AGW orthodoxy than a refutation of G&Ts paper. I hope you're willing to do at least as much stare and compare as I intend to. We'll not agree here, but the lessons are always good.
Unpublished refutation of their "paper"
The infamous "G&T" paper was written... almost two years ago. No one would even publish it, and it was ripped to shreds online; it was 90 freakin pages for cryin' out loud, much of it covering stuff people already knew, except far more inelegantly. They finally just got it out in some journal just recently... so expect the "official" responses to come soon.

You might be surprised to know that I actually did more work than that
...and yet, you still managed to post that first paper as a "publication." Tut tut.

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Mar 21, 2009 at 12:28 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Are...you being serious??
Absolutely. I'd argue I'm more serious than someone with a snorting problem.

That paper had an absolutely scathing reply by a European scientist that was immediately written in the same journal, I believe. In fact, the whole thing stunk so much it was used as an example in a "when peer review goes wrong" presentation given in an atmospheric science course I was taking at the time. If I remember correctly there was also some suspicious stuff going on with the editorial board as well.
This is good stuff. One of the contributing scientists once bought gas at an Exxon-Mobile gas station. Crucify him!

EDIT: More I thought about it, more I had to look it up:
Scathing Published Reply
Oooh, a scathing published reply immediately written by a European scientist.
queue the Lone Ranger ride scene orchestral score.

Here's a scathing published reply to his rebuttal also in the same journal.
Scathing Published rebuttal

I also found some more stuff such as the author has been accused of multiple-publication fraud (i.e. publishing in two different journals, the other one of which he's on the editorial board...hahahaha).
Oooh, good work greg. They were *hush... accused. Did you know it took me all of 10 seconds to find that a UN Panel is likewise accused of research fraud? How's your accused fraud case going?

Ooh, here's another accusation that's not turning out so well for this scientist;
NY Times

Really?!? With all this science at your disposal, affirming your view greg this is all you've got? Seriously?

Unpublished refutation of their "paper"
The infamous "G&T" paper was written... almost two years ago. No one would even publish it, and it was ripped to shreds online; it was 90 freakin pages for cryin' out loud, much of it covering stuff people already knew, except far more inelegantly. They finally just got it out in some journal just recently... so expect the "official" responses to come soon.
Okay greg... and expect the scathing rebuttal to that hit piece shortly thereafter. egadz


...and yet, you still managed to post that first paper as a "publication." Tut tut.
Tut tut indeed. Again, varying standards between AGW zealots and the people who use science to discredit them.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 09:54 AM
 
I've been asked to produce some links to studies debunking AGW, could someone please post some links debunking natural climate change?

I'll wait here. Thanks.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 10:39 AM
 
Why would anyone do that? Natural climate change is a basic tenet of climate science.

Of course, you haven't yet produced any links to studies debunking AGW. So I suppose the onus is still on you.

And LOL at that "rebuttal rebuttal." They get their digs in by saying he has "sacred beliefs" of AGW, and then proceed to just say the exact same thing they already said, with slight modifications. It wasn't a rebuttal at all. It was a re-statement. "Rebuttals" are supposed to, you know, rebut what someone else has said. Did you even read that? Did you read the rebuttal which you (for some reason) referenced as "one of them buying gas at Exxon." You didn't read it, right? No, of course not. I'm starting to think you're not even reading any of these things, ebuddy. (Shocking idea, I know.)

I'm not sure what some random accusation of money-laundering fraud against some random scientist has to do with the fact of dubious, unethical publication dealings by the scientists* whose work you hold up as proof. Wait, weren't you the one who keeps harping on about "attacking the messenger" and all that? Haha...hypocrite.

As for "that's all I've got"; why are you saying that to me? You've managed to provide links which have either been entirely discredited or are treated as a laughingstock by anyone who, you know, actually works as a climate scientist. And yet, since you seem to be getting your research information from some sort of "climate skeptic page" (since you seem to be coming up with the exact same arguments and discredited papers that everyone else comes up with), and don't actually read or understand any of the papers anyway, you feel that as long as you produce "a paper," by "a scientist," then suddenly climate science is invalidated.

Humorous, if sadly tiring.

greg

*Not climate scientists, of course. Maybe you should take a look at their paper and read the referenced material. Hahaha... I doubt if a single climate journal is present. I'm surprised Wikipedia isn't.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Why would anyone do that? Natural climate change is a basic tenet of climate science.

Of course, you haven't yet produced any links to studies debunking AGW. So I suppose the onus is still on you.
Natural climate change is a basic tenet of climate science, why should I have to link to studies debunking AGW?

And LOL at that "rebuttal rebuttal." They get their digs in by saying he has "sacred beliefs" of AGW, and then proceed to just say the exact same thing they already said, with slight modifications. It wasn't a rebuttal at all. It was a re-statement. "Rebuttals" are supposed to, you know, rebut what someone else has said. Did you even read that? Did you read the rebuttal which you (for some reason) referenced as "one of them buying gas at Exxon." You didn't read it, right? No, of course not. I'm starting to think you're not even reading any of these things, ebuddy. (Shocking idea, I know.)
They're of the same nature of the complaints I can just as easily produce from your links greg. Wherever those may be. The rebuttal you posted is absolutely no more a substantial refutation of the the critiqued study than the response I posted. Period. Once again, all this science and you've got nothing.

I'm not sure what some random accusation of money-laundering fraud against a scientists with over 500 peer-reviewed publications and contributor to the dept of energy...
As always... a day late and a dollar *snort.

Wait, weren't you the one who keeps harping on about "attacking the messenger" and all that? Haha...hypocrite.
No. If you would brush up on your reading comp, I said this is a play out of the skeptics handbook. Weren't you the one shown employing the exact same tactics as those you rail on? Hypocrite indeed!

As for "that's all I've got"; why are you saying that to me? You've managed to provide links which have either been entirely discredited or are treated as a laughingstock by anyone who, you know, actually works as a climate scientist.
You have absolutely no equitable standard for what constitutes a "climate scientist" greg. I take you about as seriously as Bozo the friggin' clown at this point.

And yet, since you seem to be getting your research information from some sort of "climate skeptic page" (since you seem to be coming up with the exact same arguments and discredited papers that everyone else comes up with), and don't actually read or understand any of the papers anyway, you feel that as long as you produce "a paper," by "a scientist," then suddenly climate science is invalidated.
Why don't you present a credible refutation of the work not also found on some pro-AGW zealots page greg? You can't. Point closed as usual your standards ebb and flow contingent upon whether or not they agree with your highly unscientific, political aspirations.

Humorous, if sadly tiring.
Sadly indeed and indicative of the quacks you're citing.

*Not climate scientists, of course. Maybe you should take a look at their paper and read the referenced material. Hahaha... I doubt if a single climate journal is present. I'm surprised Wikipedia isn't.
greg; Science! You're a joke.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 01:41 PM
 
Sooooooooooooooooooo....

...basically, you've just ignored everything that everyone has pointed out about your publications then, right? They "exist," therefore they have validity?

Sadly indeed and indicative of the quacks you're citing.
What quacks? Since I think your publications have been given a thorough pounding (although of course you'll never admit that, since this is the intarweb and logic and reason has no effect), please in turn provide me of an example of the "quacks I'm citing," since you have publicly called them out as such.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've been asked to produce some links to studies debunking AGW, could someone please post some links debunking natural climate change?

I'll wait here. Thanks.
*sigh*
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 03:00 PM
 
Oh bad move, that *sigh* will be seized on as having admitted that natural climate change isn't real.


I can't believe this argument. Climate scientists don't believe in natural climate change?? This is hilarious.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
...basically, you've just ignored everything that everyone has pointed out about your publications then, right? They "exist," therefore they have validity?
No. All you, olePigeon and others have shown is that complaints exist. The exact same by the way that can be raised of essentially any scientist, any paper, using any standards you see fit to apply to one and not the other.

What quacks? Since I think your publications have been given a thorough pounding (although of course you'll never admit that, since this is the intarweb and logic and reason has no effect), please in turn provide me of an example of the "quacks I'm citing," since you have publicly called them out as such.
Any of the quacks cited by quacks like Al Gore right? I mean, this is guilt by association? Any IPCC AGW activist quack that has made life so difficult for scientists that they'd rather resign than deal with the politicization of their discipline to manipulate the masses into mitigating something they couldn't hope to change and worse if they could.

BTW, the links I provided haven't taken a pounding at all. In fact, not one specific scientific point of any of the links I provided have been picked and refuted by you or anyone else. All I've seen is; this person bought gas at an Exxon-Mobile (of course this cannot be established yet, one may have we don't know for sure, but it's coming!!!) this one is accused of something, and that one got a "published scathing review".

I illustrated to you that you've got nothing more nefarious on their connections to the oil industry than AGW proponents to interests dwarfing "big oil". Worse, you've not even indicated how they're connected, you just claim you heard they were. C'mon greg.

I showed you that "accused" means absolutely nothing. Give me something. Give me the result of the investigation. Is there even an investigation greg? Any fines? Established guilt? Anything at all??? A UN panel is similarly "accused" for research fraud and it means nothing at this point. I showed you that there is a scientist and professor, commissioned researcher sponsored by NASA and others through multiple grants, worked with the Dept of Energy with over 500 peer reviewed, published studies who is in fact being Federally investigated for submitting fraudulent grant proposals and pocketing grant money in side ventures. Again, so...
...
...

What you missed in all this is that you have absolutely nothing greg. I posted 8 links and you've given the most feeble attempts imaginable at refuting what, two of them? Not any of the actual data mind you because you're just waiting for the great pumpkin of "scathing published rebuttals" for that. Unfortunately for you... this time there was a "published scathing reply" to that rebuttal and of course, you won't accept that. You've not given any clear indication why as usual, but that doesn't matter. As long as you can find someone on deSmog blog who found an accusation somewhere of something... anything. Of course, you didn't even try to give me any reason why the rebuttal you cited was any more credible than the response to that rebuttal, but you just maintain it isn't. Mmmkay greg. It's not like I'm going to somehow take you more seriously at this point. You've not been able to find a standard that doesn't equally apply to someone you'd readily lap up so you just keep changing them as you go. Of course, none of them having to do with any actual data anyway.

Using your "standards" I can absolutely lambaste any study, paper, panel, or scientist you present greg. Any one of them. And if this thread is any indication, I'd likely be using more scientifically valid refutations of your BS than you seem capable of using against mine.

If you're concerned about science and human-induced global warming, give me science greg. Otherwise, I'd rather rearrange my sock drawer.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Oh bad move, that *sigh* will be seized on as having admitted that natural climate change isn't real.


I can't believe this argument. Climate scientists don't believe in natural climate change?? This is hilarious.
This and your white text only affirm that natural climate change deniers are looking for something else to explain why it is the rest of us should invest in their new market commodity. I'm not buyin'. In fact, given the seriousness of the matter as illustrated by the scientific data presented by you and other science enthusiasts here, I may just buy another Jeep Wrangler.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
BTW, the links I provided haven't taken a pounding at all. In fact, not one specific scientific point of any of the links I provided have been picked and refuted by you or anyone else. All I've seen is; this person bought gas at an Exxon-Mobile (of course this cannot be established yet, one may have we don't know for sure, but it's coming!!!) this one is accused of something, and that one got a "published scathing review".
WHAT?!?

There was no review; it was a rebuttal. You clearly didn't even read it. Do you know what it says? Do you know how laughable their errors were??

You talk, talk, talk, but you never read, read, read. That's what you should be doing with this particular subject. You should try it some time. It would do you some good.

greg

EDIT: You should just be honest with yourself: you "ain't buyin'" because you've already made up your mind, and no amount of "academic tomfoolry" will change it. "Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid." 'Nuff said.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 06:13 PM
 
There was no review; it was a rebuttal. You clearly didn't even read it. Do you know what it says? Do you know how laughable their errors were??
HUH?!? Do you know how ridiculous the "rebuttal" was as demonstrated in the "response" greg?


You talk, talk, talk, but you never read, read, read. That's what you should be doing with this particular subject. You should try it some time. It would do you some good.
I don't see how your casual perusal of a National Geographic qualifies you as some sort of critic on what it is I do and don't read. You have nothing because you're not relying on science greg. C'mon. You're making anyone with any real interest in climate science look like a moron.

How are those "accusations" panning out for ya greg?

EDIT: You should just be honest with yourself: you're not buying because you've already made up your mind, and no amount of "academic tomfoolry" will change it. "Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid." 'Nuff said.
The power of stupid has already been harnessed by lapdogs like you. I'd appreciate a little more honesty and integrity from you greg. As it stands, you've not refuted a thing. You wouldn't know where to start because... you're too busy. Who knows, with any luck maybe science will catch up with you.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 07:04 PM
 
*Sigghhhhhhhhhh*

Since I have to do the work again....

After about 45 seconds of googling I found even a climate skeptic blog who even agreed that major aspects of the paper "looked strange to me ;-)" and he "would agree with many of the points in the rebuttal."

They even went so far as to make this statement in the paper:
The total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission throughout the human history is estimated at about 2.81•10^11 metric tons of carbon. Recalculating this amount into the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in grams of CO2, one obtains the estimate 1.003•10^18 g, which constitutes less than 0.00022% of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle during geologic history. Comparing these figures, one can conclude that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is negligible (indistinguishable) in any energy-matter transformation processes changing the Earth’s climate.
Which is just laughable. Do you know why? No? Try googling; I'm done spelling out 2+2 to you.

This paper was not taken seriously by anyone, and after several years I've never seen it referenced by anyone. Do you know why? Because it sucks, that's why; it was an embarrassment that it even got published.

Now, stop wasting my time. Your demands to have the most painfully stupid points spelled out in written detail is a pitiful tactic. Like Buckaroo and BadKosh and everyone else, you refuse to educate yourself on the subject beyond beyond talking points you can quickly find on teh intarwebs.

It's simply pathetic that I had to go and do the work on this one. Simply... pathetic.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 07:12 PM
 
I think we should harness the power of nerdrage in this thread, we'd never need to use fossil fuels.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
It's simply pathetic that I had to go and do the work on this one.
Oh I grant you, comparing the aggregate contribution of CO2 throughout human history (generally measured in decadal scales) with that of a geological time scale can be fairly assessed as specious. Except, they're using a geological perspective, it merely follows. They may not acknowledge CO2 feedback as much as many would think a requirement (or even regard it as a GHG), but the crux of their argument is that much of the warming attributed to humans only regards radiative forcing and not the wealth of other contributing factors as illustrated by a geologic time scale.

Still, all this misses the initial challenge given me which was to provide any peer reviewed study that contradicts the current climate change theory. It was peer-reviewed, accepted, and published by the same journal that published your "scathing reply" and the counter, subsequent response and was only one example of 8 given. Like I've always said, it is really easy to wait on "climate change skeptics" to produce links for you to simply sit back and critique, but what of the natural climate change skeptics?

Post any peer-reviewed study which suggests that humans are the dominant cause of global warming and I'll similarly rip it to shreds greg. It's easy and I'll show you if you're not too busy.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Oh I grant you, comparing the aggregate contribution of CO2 throughout human history (generally measured in decadal scales) with that of a geological time scale can be fairly assessed as specious. Except, they're using a geological perspective, it merely follows. They may not acknowledge CO2 feedback as much as many would think a requirement (or even regard it as a GHG), but the crux of their argument is that much of the warming attributed to humans only regards radiative forcing and not the wealth of other contributing factors as illustrated by a geologic time scale.
...but the method by which they do this makes no sense. The small bit I quoted is only part of their errors. They also assume, for example, that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which would seem to violate some principles of chemistry and/or physics as they're now understood (to put it mildly).

Post any peer-reviewed study which suggests that humans are the dominant cause of global warming and I'll similarly rip it to shreds greg. It's easy and I'll show you if you're not too busy.
Sigh. And here I thought the entire point of the last couple pages of "scientific method" analysis was that there wasn't a study which says this?

greg

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And here I thought the entire point of the last couple pages of "scientific method" analysis was that there wasn't a study which says this?
I simply said the most damning evidence you'll find for a warming globe caused primarily by humans comes from a panel compiled specifically to study AGW and draft policy to mitigate it. This panel has given a degree of certainty for what they feel is the dominant cause of warming.

Regardless of what has been said in the last two pages, these studies must exist right? I'd like to employ the MacNN standard of peer review to see how they hold up.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 07:00 PM
 
Hahaha, we should develop and publish our own MacNN peer-reviewed scientific journal.... "LOL SCIENCE".... complete with inline jpegs and stick-poking men for particularly pointed rebuttals.

I smell success, money, and cocaine on naked stripper's stomachs coming right up...
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Hahaha, we should develop and publish our own MacNN peer-reviewed scientific journal.... "LOL SCIENCE".... complete with inline jpegs and stick-poking men for particularly pointed rebuttals.
"LOL SCIENCE!" You know, I think you're on to something. Seriously. Inline jpegs, I like it.

You must've known when I saw a picture of the distinguished Professor emeritus George Chilingar Phd who co-authored On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? I thought;

"oh snap"
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 02:33 PM
 
Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Lard help us ... overweight must eat less for planet

Lard help us ... overweight must eat less for planet

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a ton more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organization estimates of overweight people.

The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car — another major cause of carbon emissions.

And researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say wealthy nations like the US and Britain are getting fatter by the decade.

Dr Phil Edwards said: “Food production accounts for about one fifth of greenhouse gases.

We need to do a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness. It is a key factor in the battle to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.

It is time we took account of the amount we are eating.

This is about over-consumption by the wealthy countries. And the world demand for meat is increasing to match that of Britain and America.

It is also much easier to get in your car and pick up a pint of milk than to take a walk.”


The study by Dr Edwards and colleague Ian Roberts is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Dr Edwards went on: We are not just pointing the finger at fat people. All populations are getting fatter and it has an impact on the environment.

UK health surveys estimate fatness has increased from an average body mass index of 26 to 27 in the last ten years.

That’s equivalent to about half a stone for every person.
Anyone with a BMI above 25 is overweight, while more than 30 is obese.

A staggering 40 per cent of Americans are obese, among 300 million worldwide.

Australian Professor Paul Zimmet predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006.

And Oxfam warned yesterday that the number of people hit by climate-related disasters will soar by more than half in the next six years to 375million.

The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organizations.

Sun doctor Carol Cooper said last night: I’m not sure which came first, people getting fat and driving or the other way around. It is true fat people eat more food than average.

A few obese people have a hormone problem, although most simply don’t use enough calories and eat too many. But making them feel guilty antagonises them and may not help.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 02:45 PM
 
So?
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 08:00 PM
 
Don't just eat less. Don't eat meat.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
Don't just eat less. Don't eat meat.
Exactly.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 08:21 PM
 
A movable border
Apr 16th 2009 | ROME
From The Economist print edition

How global warming can shrink glaciers and alter frontiers

ONCE frontiers were changed by armies. Now the job is done by global warming. Italy and Switzerland are preparing to make—or rather to recognise—alterations to the border that runs through the Monte Rosa massif of the Alps. Despite what romantically minded locals may say, the name of the massif has nothing to with the pink blush its peaks acquire at sunset. It comes from a dialect word meaning glacier.

The massif has nine glaciers. In several places the line between the two countries is set at the watershed. Because of global warming, the glaciers have shrunk, so the watershed has shifted, “in some places by as much as ten metres”, says General Carlo Colella of Italy’s Military Geographic Institute in Florence. In January, after four years of work by the general and his staff, Silvio Berlusconi’s cabinet approved a change in the frontier.

The line was first drawn in 1861 and enshrined in a convention 80 years later. The biggest change since came in the 1970s, when a stream that marked the border was diverted to allow construction of the Lugano-Como motorway. The two countries agreed a compensatory exchange of territory. The next Italian-Swiss agreement will be the second of three made necessary by the shrinking Alpine glaciers. Italy has already concluded a deal with Austria and plans to make another with France.

Recognising that global warming will make any line based on the watershed of a glacier temporary, the understanding with Austria has for the first time introduced the concept of a movable border. Experts from both sides will be empowered to alter it at regular intervals. Until, presumably, the glaciers disappear altogether.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,